Why have Sumeria AND Babylon?

[darski]

There could be simpler, more practical reasons why the Sumerians were added in C3C. Unlike Civ 4, one cannot have two different leaders for the same civ. The Sumerians are agricultural, which gives a different flavor to their expansion, and have a more defensive UU. Not a great UU, necessarily, but different.

The Babylonians are scientific, and have a UU that is part of the attacking forces of the ancient age. Again, promotes a different playstyle.

Could make for interesting games on Terra maps, in culturally linked starting locations.
And all of this is independent of what the civs/tribes did in RL.

I like what you have to say here. it does bring another dimension to the game play as you suggest. Thanks.

 

[del62]

Off topic at least slightly, but Eboracum and York are aso the same city.

 

[Olaf_The_Great]

Because the Byzantine Empire evolved into something different after the West Rome was dead and gone.

I never liked this argument. If you don't include Byzantium, Rome never had a "medieval age". The "Byzantines" were just what the Romano-Greeks were like in the middle ages.

 

[Stratagist IV]

For that record, why do they also have the Persians? Or why have the celts along with France/Germany/Britain? Why have the Mayans and Aztecs?

Perhaps when we are talking about that far back in history, the change isn't as widespread but I would still count them as different civilizations.

 

[ChaosArbiter]

Or why have the celts along with France/Germany/Britain?

They don't have the British, they have the English. Anyway, this one actually does make sense - France and England are pretty explicitly the Renaissance nations, Germany (which didn't even exist properly until the late 19th century) is the early modern culture, and the Celts could be any of the Celtic groups - their city names reflect the Gallic and (IIRC) Britonic groups more accurately, but there's no real reason they couldn't be the Celtiberians, the La Tenne culture, or the Galatians.

Your question here would be more fitting as "Why have both the French and English and the Germans?" as the French are some Gallic culture mixed with Latin culture, which got hit with a Germanic hammer in the 5-7th centuries (the Franks are more of a Germanic tribe, not a Celtic one); meanwhile the English are Anglo-Saxons and Romanized Britons, with some Scandinavian and Frensh influence.

So the Celts should stay in, but I agree that the English and French need to go, as they're simply by-products of Germanic influence.

 

[Stratagist IV]

I wouldn't say they need to go, because they are a different civilization. They may have been in the same region but there was so much change that "they" really did become a different people. I must say, the different leaders giving the civilizations a different flavour for each era is one of the three things I wish Civ III had that is in IV

 

[ChaosArbiter]

I wouldn't say they need to go

I would; the best things they've given the world are Tim Curry as Cardinal Richeliu.

 

[timerover51]

Siam.
Tibet DID used to be a pretty big country.
A pre-modern Vedic or Hindi country ('India' is a creation of Britain and the modern era)
Brazil has a population of almost 200 million people.
Mali's king, Mansa Musa, was one of the richest men in all history.

And, as culturally interesting as they may be many more politically/militarily insignificant 'nations' are included, like all of the Native Americans except for the Aztek.

If you want to add civilizations, go to the Creation and Customization Forum and you will find all that you can possibly want. You just have to change one civilization to another as you cannot exceed 31 civilizations in the game.

With respect to Siam you have a valid point, but I would not view India as a creation of Britain, as you had a distinctive Indian civilization well before the Greeks under Alexander arrived. You just did not have a unified India.

Brazil is definitely a creation of Portuguese colonists, along with others, and really only becomes a factor with the need for Rubber in the modern era. Prior to Portuguese settlement, Brazil was simply an area filled with very small tribal groups.

I am not sure if I would call the Maya insignificant, nor the Inca.

With respect to Mali, wealth alone is not a factor, but when you look at the civilizations included, most have had an influence on the world outside of their immediate area. Mali does not really meet that standard. Nubia/Kush/Ethiopia would have a better claim for inclusion as a result of their longstanding contacts with Egypt and its successor civilizations.

 

[Raliuven]

I think it is safe to say that, at this point, even Texas has a right to be a Civ in the game. Any collection of people has some achievement they can point to as to why they deserve to be a Civ. I am personally surprised that someone isn't advocating for Space Hamsters or lizard people.

To each their own . . .

 

[Ataxerxes]

I think it is safe to say that, at this point, even Texas has a right to be a Civ in the game. Any collection of people has some achievement they can point to as to why they deserve to be a Civ. I am personally surprised that someone isn't advocating for Space Hamsters or lizard people.

To each their own . . .

You're right! I'll advocate Space Hamsters and lizard people!

Lizard people because of the massive warm-blooded conspiracy.

 

[ChaosArbiter]

I am personally surprised that someone isn't advocating for Space Hamsters or lizard people.

Especially with the absolutely gigantic variety of Space Hamsters ... IIRC, there are well over a hundred seperate kinds.

 

[Raliuven]

Especially with the absolutely gigantic variety of Space Hamsters ... IIRC, there are well over a hundred seperate kinds.

At last count. But they breeds like . . . will hamsters.

The lizard people are making a come back though. I don't think for a moment they are not aware of the warm-blooded conspiracy. A few more of them and they might be elected to the US Senate by Minnesota, the last bastion against everything warm-blooded.

 

[ChaosArbiter]

At last count. But they breeds like . . . will hamsters.

Actuall, as of 20 or 30 years ago. I just don't remember which issue it was in and am far too busy/lazy to dig through the ones we've got to find it.